As 300POLITYKA has learned, Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki has invited all heads of government who held office after 1989 to Tuesday's exposition. We are informed that the invitations have already been delivered – personally or through associates, and were sent on behalf of the head of government by the Head of the Prime Minister's Chancellery, Michał Dworczyk.

- It is worthwhile to invite prime ministers who have led various Councils of Ministers for the past 30 years. The year 1989, when systemic changes began, marks such a turning point. We hope this custom will become a permanent fixture when expositions are delivered – we hear.

The information about the invitations for former prime ministers was confirmed in a conversation with 300POLITYKA by government spokesman Piotr Müller.

Photo: Adam Guz/KPRM

- If we hear statements about social acquaintances in the Constitutional Tribunal, they should be immediately denied. No court president can afford such relationships with politicians. It would be as if a politician said of me that I am their social discovery; I would have to hide in a mouse hole. It's unimaginable for me; throughout my entire term, I haven't met with any politician, it's simply out of the question - says Adam Bodnar, the Commissioner for Human Rights, in an interview with 300POLITYKA, which was also broadcast on Polskie Radio Koszalin. ***** - We can be activists or state functionaries who are attacked not necessarily by the state, but by fellow citizens. I'm not talking about physical attacks, but about regular hate speech. And this person tries to defend themselves and may not necessarily count on support from the prosecution. Even if proceedings are initiated, they might be conducted in a way that doesn't particularly aim for their conclusion. And this was experienced, for example, by the late President Paweł Adamowicz, who filed a notification regarding a death certificate issued by Młodzież Wszechpolska [All-Polish Youth] and never saw his case resolved. Now, to be honest, when it comes to public figures who are 'in the spotlight' and can attract attention, I am most personally worried about Olga Tokarczuk. I recall the wave of hate speech directed at her in September and October 2015, when she made a strong comment about Polish history, in the context of the publication of 'The Books of Jacob' and several interviews she gave, stating that our history is not monochromatic but has many shades of gray and many shadows worth discussing. She may have used stronger language than I am now. And an absolute wave of hate speech poured over her. Even then, for that reason, I organized a meeting in my office, which we called a 'roundtable on the fight against hate speech.' I have the impression that now, after the Nobel Prize, something similar is starting to happen to her, that she has become such a symbolic figure, due to her national and international significance, that I wouldn't be surprised if she becomes a victim of online harassment once again. - And I am more worried about Jan Śpiewak, because I expect he is more threatened due to the interests he is infringing upon... - Jan Śpiewak has many different cases that are ongoing and in which he participates, and it's somewhat difficult for me to comment on his affairs because I will have to make specific procedural decisions in his cases. I believe this is not a matter for public commentary, especially when I will likely have to consider his appeals for cassation in some of his cases. - But will you have to, or do you want to? - Cassation is a very serious power of the Commissioner for Human Rights. It involves proving illegality or a flagrant violation of substantive law or procedure. Without a comprehensive reading of the case files, I cannot determine whether I want something or not. It would be like taking a side. Before I make a decision, I need clarity on whether I have arguments indicating a flagrant violation of substantive law or procedure, and it would be inappropriate for me to comment beforehand. - I was wondering if, after the Nabielak ruling and Śpiewak's conviction for using the term 'wild privatization,' it is even worth defending the courts in such a situation? - Firstly, the term 'wild privatization' can absolutely be used. If I recall correctly, the case Mr. Śpiewak was involved in concerned the assessment of the actions of one of the lawyers. But one would need to know what was in the lawsuit and the judgment. ***** What else Dr. Adam Bodnar says in his interview with 300POLITYKA: * The standard of the rule of law has declined in recent years, which does not mean this principle is not respected in every court ruling. * The intersection of our lives with politics is increasing; politics is radiating onto us more and more. * Harassment of journalists or NGOs is a new phenomenon; this is something new. * How are we supposed to know how special services operate when there is no oversight body for them? * The introduction of cyclical assemblies represents a serious loophole regarding civil liberties standards. * We have witnessed the harassment of demonstrators. * In the case of the equality march in Białystok, perhaps Minister Witek did not have as much influence on the police as her predecessor, Minister Brudziński. * Some mayors from Civic Platform [PO] behave inconsistently with their declared views regarding equality marches. * Discriminatory legalism involves the state showing particular interest in those protesting against the authorities, or the law is not applied to allies of the authorities. * I personally fear for Olga Tokarczuk; I remember the wave of hate speech directed at her. * Jan Śpiewak has many ongoing cases, and it's difficult for me to comment on his matters because I will have to make procedural decisions. I believe public commentary is inappropriate in this situation. * The privatization bill presented by Patryk Jaki was not bad, although I had some remarks, particularly concerning linking the right to acquire property to citizenship. * The privatization law would, for example, create space for the development of social housing. * It's a shame that the work on Minister Jaki's bill didn't progress further. * We criticize the courts but not the politicians who failed to address this situation. * It's difficult for me to be enthusiastic about the candidacy of Professor Pawłowicz or Mr. Piotrowicz, who denied me the opportunity to answer deputies' questions at a committee meeting. * Individuals not qualified to adjudicate sit on the Constitutional Tribunal, and this affects the Tribunal's standing. * If we hear statements about social acquaintances, they should be immediately denied; no court president can afford such relationships with politicians. If a politician said of me that I was their social discovery, I would have to hide in a mouse hole. * This is unimaginable for me; throughout my entire term, I have not met with any politician; it's simply out of the question. * The Constitutional Tribunal does not function as the guardian of the Constitution, the highest controller of the legislative power.